Sentencing to Drug Court

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-70
Author(s):  
Lizett Martinez Schreiber
Keyword(s):  
Drug Court ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Drug Offenders ◽  
Alternative Sentencing ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Criminal Justice Reform ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Success Stories ◽  
National Organizations

Drug courts are frequently touted as an alternative sentencing option for low-level drug offenders and were even promoted by U.S. presidential candidates in 2020. While national organizations tout that “Drug Courts Work,” there are many who question their efficacy. Favorable statistics and success stories depend on close fidelity to the prescribed models from the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. With rapid adoption of drug courts nationwide, and little oversight of their fidelity to the drug court model, some judges may operate drug courts in ways that can harm, rather than help, an increasing number of participants. Improper drug court admissions and heavy use of jail sanctioning lead to worse outcomes for participants—and to suspicion toward drug courts among the criminal justice reform movement of which drug courts aim to be a part. While the drug court model has evolved as a treatment model for offenders with high criminogenic risk and high treatment need, some judges either disregard or are unaware of this shift. Participants are supervised more closely and are often given higher treatment dosages than they require to address their substance use disorder. Low-level offenders may end up with accrued jail time through their drug court participation that exceeds the amount they would have received had they simply been sentenced to a jail term at the outset of their plea. Increased oversight of drug courts, combined with required education for judges and court staff, will lead to a better understanding of the drug court model. By identifying the proper target population, focusing on treatment, and reducing or eliminating jail sanctions, drug courts will align with the national model, improve outcomes, and reduce both jail time and recidivism of their participants. This Article outlines the evolution of the drug court model and shows that lack of understanding of that evolution leads to harsher sentencing for low-level drug offenders.

Drug Courts and Net-Widening in U.S. Cities: A Reanalysis Using Propensity Score Matching

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Lilley ◽  
Megan C. Stewart ◽  
Kasey Tucker-Gail
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Comparison Group ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Drug Offenders ◽  
Net Widening

Although drug courts were intended to reduce the justice system involvement of drug offenders, a recent study found evidence that drug courts were associated with increased (rather than decreased) arrests for minor misdemeanor drug offenses (Lilley, 2017; Walsh, 2011). However, the previous study did not utilize an equivalent comparison group and may have relied on a large sample size to generate findings. The current study tested the robustness of those findings by analyzing only cities with over 50,000 population, including four additional years of data, and utilizing a more equivalent comparison group that was propensity-matched to reduce the possibility that a preexisting difference may have generated higher arrest outcomes among drug court jurisdictions. Net-widening, arrest, and crime challenges and implications for drug court policies and law enforcement roles are also discussed.

Perceptions of Balanced Justice and Rehabilitation for Drug Offenders

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 990-1009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lincoln B. Sloas ◽  
Cassandra A. Atkin-Plunk
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Multinomial Logistic Regression ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Juvenile Courts ◽  
Drug Offenders ◽  
Criminal Justice Students ◽  
Balanced Approach ◽  
Southern University ◽  
Criminology And Criminal Justice

Drug courts were designed as a way to provide both rehabilitation and sanction-based approaches to drug offenders. Yet studies have not directly tested a “balanced” approach to justice for drug offenders. Drawing on the work of Mears, Pickett, and Mancini, this study adapts the philosophical tenets of juvenile courts into a drug court setting. This study uses multinomial logistic regression from a sample of 575 undergraduate criminology and criminal justice students from a large southern university to assess support for sanctioning approaches for nonviolent and violent drug offenders. Findings suggest that participants support a balanced justice approach to sanctioning violent drug offenders, whereas supporting a rehabilitation approach to sanctioning nonviolent drug offenders. The findings from this study highlight the importance of the public’s differing views on sanctioning drug-involved offenders.

Women and Adult Drug Treatment Courts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corinne C. Datchi
Keyword(s):  
Drug Treatment ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Drug Offenders ◽  
Drug Treatment Courts ◽  
Legal Power ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Alternatives To Incarceration ◽  
Treatment Courts ◽  
The Individual

Drug courts offer community-based correctional alternatives to incarceration and target nonviolent felons who engage in criminal activities to sustain their drug use. They use a variety of technologies and sanctions to monitor drug offenders’ adherence to a sober, prosocial lifestyle and to enforce their compliance with drug treatment. The scope of the court’s surveillance power extends to the addicts’ home, place of employment, treatment provider, and recovery community. This chapter examines women’s experiences of the court’s surveillance and use of legal power to mandate treatment. It also highlights the medical and psychological theories that operate within drug court and inform the court’s understanding of addiction and deviance, in particular the idea that addiction is a disease beyond the control of the individual. It reviews the research on the effectiveness of drug courts in light of empirical knowledge about substance-using women and makes recommendations for enhancing gender responsiveness and multicultural competence in drug courts.

Drug Courts and Arrest for Substance Possession: Was the African American Community Differentially Impacted?

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 352-374
Author(s):  
David R. Lilley ◽  
Kristen DeVall ◽  
Kasey Tucker-Gail
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Therapeutic Jurisprudence ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Differential Impact ◽  
Drug Offenders ◽  
Minority Threat ◽  
Problem Solving Courts ◽  
Drug Arrests

Although drug courts were intended to reduce the justice system involvement of drug offenders, a recent study found evidence that drug courts were associated with increased (rather than decreased) arrests for minor misdemeanor drug offenses. The author of that study noted that findings raised further questions about whether the increased drug arrests should be interpreted as beneficial or harmful and whether they might have had a differential impact on minority residents. This study incorporated race-specific arrest information to partially answer these questions by utilizing a series of fixed-effects regressions among U.S. cities with populations over 50,000 from 1990 to 2006. Findings indicate that drug court implementation was associated with substantial increases in arrests of Black, but not White residents. Ethical and theoretical implications for therapeutic jurisprudence, problem-solving courts, and the minority threat perspective are discussed.

Improving graduation rates in drug court: A qualitative study of participants’ lived experiences

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Robert Gallagher ◽  
Anne Nordberg ◽  
Elyse Lefebvre
Keyword(s):  
Substance Use ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Criminal Recidivism ◽  
Frequent Contact

For nearly three decades, drug courts have provided a rehabilitative approach within the criminal justice system for individuals who have a substance use disorder. The goal of drug courts is to reduce criminal recidivism, and research has consistently suggested that participants that graduate drug court are less likely to recidivate than those who are terminated from the program. This qualitative study adds to the literature by asking drug court participants ( N = 42) their views on the most helpful aspects of the program that support them in graduating and how the program could be more helpful to support them in graduating. Two themes emerged from the data: (1) participants felt that interventions that are common to drug courts, such as drug testing and having frequent contact with the judge, were most helpful in supporting them in graduating the program; (2) participants felt that the agencies that offered treatment for their substance use disorders used punitive tactics and judgmental approaches that compromised the quality of treatment they received, and they felt that this was a barrier to them graduating the program. The findings are discussed in reference to drug court practice.

States' Budget Investments in Technology and Improving Criminal Justice Outcomes

2018 ◽  
pp. 90-105
Author(s):  
Deborah Mohammed-Spigner ◽  
Brian E. Porter ◽  
Lois M. Warner
Keyword(s):  
Information Technology ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Public Safety ◽  
Prison Population ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Rate Of Return ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Criminal Justice Reform ◽  
Prison Populations

Investments in criminal justice have been expanding over the decades especially as specific outcomes have been sought to address the issues surrounding crime and public safety. Reducing crime and the rate of imprisonment can both significantly impact public safety and cost savings, as well as address outcomes for the justice-involved population in reducing the rate of return to imprisonment, or recidivism. Lessening sentences for non-violent crimes and expanding drug courts as an alternative to incarceration, along with other major criminal justice reform, have led some states to experience a reduction in crime and prison population. New Jersey, Hawaii, and California have made significant strides to reduce its crime and prison populations and are leaders in achieving major criminal justice reform. This chapter seeks to examine corrections spending for these three leading states that have implemented evidence-based policies and adapted information technology to improve criminal justice outcomes. It will also outline states spending on corrections over the past five years.

scholarly journals The Family Framework in a Drug Treatment Court

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 237802311876146
Author(s):  
Daanika Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Drug Court ◽  
Therapeutic Strategies ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Institutional Practices ◽  
Predominately White ◽  
Program Selection ◽  
The Family ◽  
Ethnographic Observation ◽  
State Projects ◽  
Treatment Court

Drug courts reflect an expanding effort to transform the state’s response to drug crimes. Such programs merge punitive and therapeutic strategies in efforts to rehabilitate clients. The author takes the case of one drug court to elaborate on a set of institutional practices characterizing this mode of intervention. On the basis of ethnographic observation of the court’s weekly review hearings, interviews with program professionals, and analysis of documents and media accounts, the author describes the centrality of the “family framework”—the idea that clients are childlike and “grow up” in the context of the program—to the priorities, norms, and practices of drug court professionals. The family framework relied on raced and classed constructs of dependence and deservingness. These constructs shaped program selection and completion, enabling the court to focus on a predominately white and often middle-class client base. The author suggests that this case clarifies how state projects can both intensively regulate and circumscribe their scope to a population deemed worthy.

Validating Drug Court Collaboration Instrument: Differences in Model Adherence Between Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 1990-2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaohan Mei ◽  
Jacqueline G. van Wormer ◽  
Ruibin Lu ◽  
Mia J. Abboud ◽  
Faith E. Lutze
Keyword(s):  
Drug Abuse ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
National Sample ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Juvenile Courts ◽  
Black Boxes ◽  
Current Article ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
Better Than

Drug courts aim to significantly address drug abuse and drug-related criminality. However, the effectiveness of drug courts varies from court to court. The variation of success demands insights regarding what is going on inside the “black box” of drug court practices. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate to what extent drug courts are operated in adherence with guiding principles and strategies. Using a national sample and validated measures, the current article examines the “black boxes” of adult and juvenile drug courts across the country. We found that, in general, adult drug courts face less model adherence challenges in comparison with juvenile courts, which may, in part, explain why adult drug courts perform better than juvenile drug courts overall.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document